On California and Climate Change Policy

If anything is eminently clear from Roger Karapin’s book, Political Opportunities for Climate Policy: California, New York and the Federal Government, it is that the government of California presents magnificent methods of rallying together its populace and industrial community around climate change, toward dramatically reducing harmful emissions into the atmosphere in both the short- and long-term. Any doubt of this can be resolved in the knowledge that targets for reductions include a “29% reduction from the business-as-usual scenario, and a 32% cut in per-capita emissions over 1990-2020” (32), an era in which emissions across the world have often increased.


For further context, Karapin often accuses the United States federal government of remaining a “laggard in climate policy” (220), given that presidents who have presented ambitious policies for curbing emissions and promoting sustainable resources, have been disadvantaged by ineffective advertisement, as in the case of President Carter (199); an uncooperative congress full of Republicans who abandoned their appreciation for cap-and-trade when it was favored by the new president, as in the case of President Obama (215); or a combination of both poor advertising and an uncooperative congress, with a sex scandal to even further distance the government from new policies, as in the case of President Clinton (205-6). Otherwise, United States presidents have dramatically reduced funding for programs, including President Reagan, who argued against any “rigid set of production and conservation goals dictated by government” (qtd. in 200). And, even President H. W. Bush, who contended that those fearing any greenhouse effect should be warier of the “White House Effect” (qtd. in Merchants of Doubt), still made minimal progress in bringing forth climate justice as a major part of their ideologies. Thus, in comparing California to the federal government, it really only takes a steady liberal base in the former to beat out the latter’s progress—or lack thereof.

However, what perhaps may be the most significant difference between the California and the United States, vis-à-vis their effectiveness in combating climate change through governmental policy, may ultimately be that California has “legally binding emissions targets” (43). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is legally required to “implement regulation” to keep the state aligned with its goals (43). As compared to a federal government that preëmptively and unanimously rejected the Kyoto Conference, which would have required such legal ties to otherwise symbolic goals (206), the government of California is stuck with its commitments. CARB will enact sustainable regulation, regardless of the ebbs and flows of the representatives in power, and the state will be forced to abide by more strict governmental regulation. The most important difference between the governments of California and the United States may ultimately be that California must honor its targets, while the latter is a lot less pressured to do so.